It is the irony that people are so worked up about Trump that they forget how much #2 sucks.
Hillary is a simply a pragmatist who has been in the game longer, so has had a longer observable "evolution" on the issues. Remember when Obama refused to endorse same sex marriage early in his tenure? She will govern like a liberal because she feels like the electorate is ready for someone to govern like a liberal. She's essentially the polar opposite of a ideologue, much like her husband, which I personally have no problem with. True ideologues like Ted Cruz scare the hell out of me.
It's not my case to make. I've already stated my relative indifference to Hillary given her political alignment as a centrist with a few random liberal tendencies. She certainly ain't some progressive champion. Politics nowadays has realigned things so that people like Hillary are essentially conservatives of the classic definition, fighting to maintain status quo of achievements from days past like The Great Society and New Deal. If she gets elected so what? You'll have a "Democrat" in office whose ambition stops with preserving the poorly constructed Obamacare and perhaps engaging in a few more proactive neoconservative conflicts in the Middle East. If you want Dubya and Obama in a new wrapper then enjoy.
Actually, nothing prevents opposing party from never holding any hearings for any length of the time. If republicans keep their majority in the senate and Clinton isthe next president, she can be deprived of nominating any judges for eight years if the senate feels like it. According to the constitutional scholars there is absolutely nothing unconstitutional in that non-process!
So it sees that Republicans are trying to have their cake and eat it too regarding the supreme court nomination. They have said that they might take up Obama's nominee in the lame duck period if Hillary wins the election, which of course raises a couple of contradictions in itself
1. I thought the American people should decide? Does this not apply if it's not a Republican president?
2. Did they suddenly remember that a president is not considered a lame duck for the entire last year of his presidency?
With that said, should democrats make clear that if Hillary wins, and especially if they take back the senate, that they will withdraw this pick so Hillary can make the pick, presumably someone much younger and more liberal? Would be hilarious to watch Republicans suddenly claim obstruction in this case, and I have no doubt they would try.
No, Hillary is a progressive, probably an OG one at that, her problem is that she isn't a politician (more accurately she is a horrible politician). If she had a quarter of the political capability as her husband she'd make bernie look like the centrist. While you think the big idea candidate, bernie sanders, is the true progressive, we've got clinton who has been making actual progress throughout her public career.
I'd rather bet on the achiever than the believer myself.
Even if we accept that as true (which it isn't because Obama and Hillary are both a far cry from Bush) we'd still prefer that to any of the GOP candidates that will promptly jump on top of America, put a pillow over her face and start stabbing wildly.It's not my case to make. I've already stated my relative indifference to Hillary given her political alignment as a centrist with a few random liberal tendencies. She certainly ain't some progressive champion. Politics nowadays has realigned things so that people like Hillary are essentially conservatives of the classic definition, fighting to maintain status quo of achievements from days past like The Great Society and New Deal. If she gets elected so what? You'll have a "Democrat" in office whose ambition stops with preserving the poorly constructed Obamacare and perhaps engaging in a few more proactive neoconservative conflicts in the Middle East. If you want Dubya and Obama in a new wrapper then enjoy.
Even if we accept that as true (which it isn't because Obama and Hillary are both a far cry from Bush) we'd still prefer that to any of the GOP candidates that will promptly jump on top of America, put a pillow over her face and start stabbing wildly.
I Googled that and Google asked: "Did you mean change?"
People want America to change because they see it going down the wrong path. Declining. Don't make me bury you in charts and graphs à la H. Ross Perot.
I'll say this, if Hillary does win she had better pick a "liberal". Repubs wanted to shit on the process and make it political, then Hillary should make it political.
I assume Obama agreed to the deal since he selected Garland instead of the more diverse choices.
Even if someone fillibusters, Obama just needs a few Dem votes for cloture, right?
Why would Obama agree to this? If Hilary wins I would expect an even more liberal pick. Why would she back down. She has 4 years to get a pick. Can the Republicans (if they control congress) garner the political will to not to fill that seat and trash all her picks for 4 years? The Republican's hands are tied and I see no incentive for Obama to untie it for them given their attempt at obstruction.
I really don't get Republican long term strategy. They are very good at short term obstruction (maybe their goal was to get Obama to pick a middle road judge, but I don't think anyone in the Senate believes Trump will win a national election.
Why would Obama agree to this? If Hilary wins I would expect an even more liberal pick. Why would she back down. She has 4 years to get a pick. Can the Republicans (if they control congress) garner the political will to not to fill that seat and trash all her picks for 4 years? The Republican's hands are tied and I see no incentive for Obama to untie it for them given their attempt at obstruction.
I Googled that and Google asked: "Did you mean change?"
People want America to change because they see it going down the wrong path. Declining. Don't make me bury you in charts and graphs à la H. Ross Perot.
No, Hillary is a progressive, probably an OG one at that, her problem is that she isn't a politician (more accurately she is a horrible politician). If she had a quarter of the political capability as her husband she'd make bernie look like the centrist. While you think the big idea candidate, bernie sanders, is the true progressive, we've got clinton who has been making actual progress throughout her public career.
I'd rather bet on the achiever than the believer myself.
I assume Obama agreed to the deal because he wants to chose the nominee so he gets credit in the history books instead of Hillary. They aren't even friends so why would he give Hillary the chance?
Perhaps the Republicans told Obama to send over his short list once it has been determined and if any of the nominees are acceptable to them for a lame duck confirmation, they would let him know. Out of the three choices, Garland was the one that they would confirm so they let Obama know and Obama went ahead with Garland.
Watch as she "achieves" some more free trade for us.
Who was the last president to oppose free trade? You, like bernie himself, are being too idealistic. Opposing free trade in practice doesn't jive with political realities.
Yep. The common mans perception of free trade is they take our jerbs and move them somewhere cheap in order to screw their fellow Americans. On the flip side, that same common man walks into a Walmart and walks past the higher priced American made widget for the lower priced widget made in China.
There's a back room deal in place.
http://www.npr.org/2016/03/16/470673665/obama-picks-merrick-garland-for-supreme-court-seat
I assume Obama agreed to the deal since he selected Garland instead of the more diverse choices.
Even if someone fillibusters, Obama just needs a few Dem votes for cloture, right?
Yep. The common mans perception of free trade is they take our jerbs and move them somewhere cheap in order to screw their fellow Americans. On the flip side, that same common man walks into a Walmart and walks past the higher priced American made widget for the lower priced widget made in China.
So it sees that Republicans are trying to have their cake and eat it too regarding the supreme court nomination. They have said that they might take up Obama's nominee in the lame duck period if Hillary wins the election, which of course raises a couple of contradictions in itself
1. I thought the American people should decide? Does this not apply if it's not a Republican president?
2. Did they suddenly remember that a president is not considered a lame duck for the entire last year of his presidency?
With that said, should democrats make clear that if Hillary wins, and especially if they take back the senate, that they will withdraw this pick so Hillary can make the pick, presumably someone much younger and more liberal? Would be hilarious to watch Republicans suddenly claim obstruction in this case, and I have no doubt they would try.